(As a gay guy, it's refreshing to meet people like you, and I thank you profusely for your support. Meeting Christians who actually follow the words of Jesus instead of the twisted and perverse Evangelical Agenda is refreshing. It's truly sad when you must describe someone who actually practices their faith instead of bending it to their disgusting agenda as refreshing, when it should be the norm.)
The Christian understanding has always been that this was a ritual requirement as it involves the concept of cleanliness. The cleanliness requirements of the Mosaic Law were surpassed in the Christian era. It's the same as the food laws, where some foods were regarded under the Mosaic Law as unclean (e.g., pork). There is a difference between something being ritually unclean and something being fundamentally immoral. Hope this helps!
+Dennis Mahon I hate it when they use that tactic because then it makes me sad that they think that they can take scripture out of context. Slavery was different 3000 years ago. In fact, the hebrew word used as slave, was "eved", which means bondservant. If someone was in debt, they could go into 'slavery', and once they had enough money, they could leave their master.
Wow Zachary, I'm so impressed you know about certain historical contexts in which Biblical terms were used. Apply that same principle to "arsenokoites" and "malokoi" and we'll all be on the same page!
Awesome video Jimmy. God bless. We should all pray for Dan and anyone who is struggling with SSA. It is not an easy cross to bare but if we put our trust in God we can do anything.
Please, all you people do is try to justify your discrimination with a bronze age book of fairy tails! Not being able to discriminate is NOT discrimination.
Leo Roberts What’s wrong with bronze, or the metals which go into it? Do you want to go back to the Stone Age? What’s so bizarre in what you say is that I’ll bet you defer to the American Native cultures as equal to or superior to modern culture, when those ARE stone-age cultures.
Thank you for this clear and concise message that is not antagonistic, against what Dan Savage had to say. I really appreciate it when "internet" people put out reasonable intelligent arguments rather than stomping their foot and saying, 'cuz i said so!'. Blessings!
Jimmy, thanks for this video. As a gay Catholic, I would like to hear you speak to the issue of gays in the Catholic faith and Church. Many feel as though the marriage issue is extended to an attack on their sexuality and personhood, and not just the sexual act or the issue of marriage, and feel as though the church does not want them. I know that is not true, but it would be nice to hear that issue addressed and developed more fully.
Dan Savage is the appointee to speak out against bullying in schools. He also happens to be a major pro-gay advocate. While speaking at schools against bullying, he relentlessly bullies Christian students. Both ironic and hypocritical...and a disgusting example of a man proposing to "advocate" for anyone.
***** Mr. Savage questions the bible and personal (mis)intepretations of the bible by people like you, Leo... Questioning your stance is not attacking by any means
Even Savage's Philemon/Onesimus reference is answerable. S's complaint is that Paul doesn't ask Philemon to set his slave free. This is an ahistorical complaint. Paul is in a situation where slavery is practised by that society. He accepted that but he also appealed to Philemon to treat his runaway Onesimus as "a brother". In that time, such an attitude was unthinkable. Paul stays within his context but his appeal is used by Christians later in history to destroy slavery in the UK and the US!
Yes I work in the Pro-Life movement, showing people what abortion actually is (torn up pieces of unborn children), and still people will shrug it off either by saying, "well there are such hard cases", or just being vile. In front of them is a child who had been murdered and their response is only that of hate or coldness.
okay Dan I understand what you are saying. But on the other hand we do not see a group of adulterers getting out here demanding rights to be able to commit adultery and being very aggressive calling JESUS all manner of bad names ect.
No; but we do see a lot of Christians 'getting out there' and persistently justifying themselves for breaking the commandment Jesus left us all: that we love one another as he loved us. Where is there room in this explicit commandment for support of the death penalty, for example? The Catholic Church, of which Jimmy Akin is a member, does not rule out recourse to it and has morally supported its use for many centuries. (In fact, popes at one time employed their own executioners, tomwhom they paid 3 lire per decapitation.)
My home provides food and shelter for those who have fallen on hard times. And by my reading of history I see that Christianity has been the biggest player in promoting the kind of behavior that you have stated in your last comment. When I was an atheist, I did not have such altruistic pursuits and when I talk to atheists that do, they convey a spirit of simply trying to show Christians that they can treat others well without Christianity. But Christianity there is still their driving force.
If you’re having problems with Deuteronomy 20, I suggest you try searching a commentary. Just type in “Deuteronomy 20 Commentary”. Hopefully you find a good one. It’s funny when I hear people site certain bible passages as being horrible savagery, because when the home work is put in, they usually come to find that, compared to the times, the Israelites/or Christians were actually making giant leaps forward with their laws. I’m willing to bet you’ll find the same with this book and chapter.
Gen 2:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Reliable source for what? The bible is one of the most blood-thirsty documents on the planet, perhaps only slightly less so than the qu'ran, which was inspired by the bible. No thanks. I would not trust the bible if it was the last book on the planet.
Just trust the Bible? Are you really this stupid? The Bible was written by ignorant people who didn't eve know the earth revolved around the sun. It supports slavery and recommends all kinds of mind numbing barbarism. Moron!!
If you actually take time to read the bible, you will see there is absolutely nothing within it to suggest that it was written by an omniscient, omnipotent, creator. Every single word was obviously written by ignorant people who thought that the earth was the center of the universe. There is nothing particularly useful in the Bible at all. There are all kinds of instructions of how to sacrifice animals and why we should kill people for being homosexual or “non-virgins” or for being obstreperous teenagers. I could get any normal nine year old in this country to improve the Ten Commandments on moral terms in five minutes. Many of the books included in the New Testament have been identified by every credible Bible scholar on the planet as pseudepigrapha or outright forgery. Every Christian apologist bowdlerizes the Bible which proves that even the strictest fundamentalist can’t take God at His word.
I feel sorry for you and people like you because it's obvious you are an uneducated, ignorant, credulous, and deluded robot of a person. The one thing that separates us from all other animal species is our ability to think critically and idiots like you choose not to. Sad.
cage chimps Well this last comment just shows how fucking stupid, you are. I have read and studied the Bible for many years. I’m sure I could run rings around an idiot like you regarding Bible knowledge. The Bible supports slavery in the Old Testament and the New. It is self refuting in hundreds of places. I especially enjoy this pearl of wisdom that is found in Deuteronomy 22 20-21. I want nothing to do with worshiping a “God” that recommends such horrific barbarism. You should be ashamed of yourself if you do.
Their slavery was carefully defined and all sorts of restrictions were placed on the 'ownership' of the person. In fact, it has been said that OT slavery was little worse than what could be described as an indentured worker. Many slaves put themselves voluntarily into slavery to work off their debts. Now what do we do with such people? Some of them wind up in gaol! Find me one reference in the OT about gaols. These unenlightened people in the OT didn't have them!
Sexual attraction is a normal natural process. The same sex attraction is what makes one homosexual, not the physical act of sex which occurs far more frequently between hetrosexuals anyway per capita, your final point is irrelevant on many levels. It is a fallacy to use what you think is normal in nature as a moral argument. Nature is pragmatic in how organisms evolve, it has no moral guideline or goal, hence it is unwise to try to link the two. Stick with your bible to support bigotry, but keep nature out of it.
"Homosexual acts are seen as unnatural because the body parts aren't being used for their inherent purposes." According to who? They have more than one function, and give pleasure too, which is a natural function. There is nothing unnatural about using cocaine or eating a box of donuts daily, its just unwise. Homosexuality is not about having sex anally either, its about being attracted to the same sex. Lesbians are homosexual too, how do they fall into your narrow doctrine, or are you only bigotted against men. Your last comment does not even make sense, calling a religious doctrine bigotted does not make me bigotted anymore than saying that most segments of Christianity, for centuries, promoted antisemitism, makes me, the accuser, anti-semetic. Do you even know what bigotted means?
merriam-webster.com defines it as 'a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc'. I think that is a bit more accurate as you could use your definition to apply to anyone who disagrees with anyone on those topics. The 'unfairly' part is particularly relevant. I am not intolerant of other beliefs I don't share as a whole, but there are some that cross the line between being merely different to being cruel or unjust. I assume you are 'intolerant' towards child mutilations done by some religions? or do you not care about those children? I suppose the slavery supported in scientology is fine by you too, or the idea that any suffering of a child is deserved in some hindu traditions according to karma? You don't have to be tolerant to every belief everyone has if it does not warrant toleration just because it is linked to a religion or political party. Perhaps you are tolerant of the KKK's bigotry? BTW I was a catholic, I had no free will to join, I was MADE a catholic without my consent, and heavily indoctrinated into it by parents, priests and society. Only when I educated myself in history, philosophy and science was I able to step away from the church and finally the faith in my 30's. The sex act is not exclusively homosexual either, and are carried out by hetrosexuals too (in far greater percentages). You ignored lesbians seemingly in your reply too. If you have a problem with anal sex, that is fine, but you don't get to use your phobia to attack the rights of a group of people on their sexual preferences. What two consenting adults do in their own home is up to them. If they ask you to take part, then you get to voice an opinion about your own preferences and be taken seriously.
and it is the right of others, like myself, to point out that the morality that catholics are using is bigoted because it is unfair and unjust. Yes they have the right to hold their beliefs, just like the KKK have their rights to oppose mixed marriages and the scientologists oppose mixed religious marriages. Catholics do force their beliefs on non catholics by voting enmass according to those beliefs, which are based on your theology not logic or reason. As far as 'free' is concerned, priests browbeat them from pulpits and threaten them with hellfire. Yeah, some 'free' will. If you hold a gun to someones head and ask for money, its their 'free' will to give it to you. (sarcasm implied.) And a final word on the 'forced' part. What do you call it but being brought in without consent to fulfill archane rituals you have no understanding of? How is that NOT forced. And my parents have been indoctrinated and threatened by the church, as have THEIR parents, so pretending the church is blameless is extremely dishonest. It reminds me of the priest in my country saying that it was the mothers of the rape victims that were REALLY at fault, not the Church, for not revealing the crimes sooner, when the church browbeat and threatened and blackmailed parents into submission for decades.
"Catholics use more logic and reason than you can imagine." I am from Ireland, with a 85% catholic population. If you mean that people who hold the catholic faith can use reason and logic in everyday lives. Sure, I never said otherwise. But as far as justifying their faith, no... not even remotely. They think Lewis makes sense for crying out loud. "Catholics in America do not "force" their beliefs onto people." REALLY? So you don't baptise your children according to the doctrines of your faith, demand that the parents raise their children in that faith, have ongoing cerimonies that reinforce it? In Ireland the church controls 90% of the schools, priests have their hands in everything and our catholic politicans have enacted blasphemy laws. They also have massive corruption and the priest I mentioned did not say it was the victims fault, but the mother of the victims fault for not making the abuses public. They tried to hide behind the confessional, and have threatened children and parents, they refuse to pay most of the compensation and still try to shirk off their responsibilities. I know genuine priests that have come back from missions and broke down and cried at how the Church has failed them, god and their communities. Tell me one reasonable reason for your faith? I was raised by catholics, live surrounded by catholics, have family and friends who are catholic, have priests and nuns in my family and was very religious at one stage. I stopped believing for good reasons, and have never been given a single reason to think that catholicism is correct since.
Wonderful video & response, also I would like to share with Mr. Akin the same sympathy toward Mr. Savage plus pray to our Loving Heavenly Father for him & everyone suffering from any sin or temptation (including myself) so that He grants all of us His sufficient Grace to overcome all sins & temptations, & lead us to His Life-giving Truth in Jesus name, Amen. God bless you Jimmy Akin & keep up the good work
so should all divorced woman be stoned to death? jesus never cleaned that up, in fact he agreed they should be. why do christians not belive in that today? because over time they realized it was wrong, that women deserve the right to divorce and shouldnt be punished. im not a christian myself, i have a mix of different beliefs but im closest to Buddhism, but the old testament said thered be a savior, and that savior, jesus, changed old testament rules. the bible then said that jesus, gods ONLY son, will return to earth at the end of earth. that means there wont be any direct messages from god anymore. that means its up to christians to change what god said before to what would best fit the world now. gods words from the old testament and jesus's words from the new do not apply anymore, there simply a guideline you are free to edit and manipulate for the good of humanity. just like christians edited gods word on divorce, you should do the same on homosexuality, premarital sex(which really shouldnt apply anyway considering people where getting married back then at the age there having premarital sex now), and even consensual incest with contraception to prevent children being born with disabilities. jesus taught love, not laws, so you should follow the path of love, not laws.
wow This is why not to do Bible study with atheists!!! Joe I'm just going to admit from the start I'm inadequate to correct your misconceptions. Seek help professionally! Biblical hermeneutic's is not my one of my strength, nor yours apparently!!! If your going to comment on a page you should at-least take the time and effort to connect and understand to the subject material. I knew fundamental atheist were making a straw-man God so that they could pretend to defeat him. This however is a whole new level. It is hard to take seriously, except with the lies spread about Jesus these days. I suspect you are serious in misconceptions of your statement!!
lmaoyourekiddingme and is pot smoking really so unholy? Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. Ephesians 5:18 - And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Mark 7:18 - 7:20 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.(this means no drugs can make you a worse person unless they make you act like a worse person, and considering the fact that the only thing in the world a stoner is a threat to is cake, pot smoking isnt bad) Revelation 22:1-2 “On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.”
your forgetting the verse about using all plants. unless you can find a verse that specificly says cannabis is bad, i think you should stop saying bad things about weed. and i didnt say you should do destructive things to yourself, i said i shouldnt judge you based on what you do to yourself as long as your not hurting anyone else. i dont think anyone should do coke or H but unless its causing you to harm others(example a crackhead mom buying crack instead of food for her starving kid) im not gonna treat you like a bad person for it. i dont know why the hell anyone would drink bloods with AIDS in it, gas, or bleach, or eat poop but as long as your not spreading that AIDS i dont see why its our duty to hurt them more. no i dont think you should do any of those self destructive things, but im not gonna hurt you more cuz you did it. cannabalize other human beings? that kills people,making it bad. if it didnt kill people,theres no problem with it, but it does, making it not apply to this. yes i am a teen, no im not a high school dropout, and i do in fact have a hell of a life ahead of me. our current president is a former pot smoker. einstein was a regular pot smoker. plenty of succesfull people smoked.
I am edified by the narrative starting at around minute 3:20 What we need is a video of Dan Savage and Jimmy Akin in a debate on this part of the Old Testament. I know it won't happen because gay activists are not inclined to engage in real dialogue that exposes their distortion tactics. They have become very good at pretending to know scripture but their narrative only succeeds on uninformed minds, usually young minds. Dan gets away with what he says because he speaks to teens.
Way to avoid the issue. When a small person can't deal with their shortcomings and move on, they often deflect. If you don't care about being held accountable for calling someone a pervert- don't do it.
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.” ― Author Frantz Fanon
Excellent explanation which puts a proper perspective on Biblical text and boldly faces the calamitous nature of those who would put forward the equality of life choices when no such equation can exist but for the mistaken will of individuals who wish to walk away from right reason and everlasting love.
1) None of what you brought up as talking points for other objections in Leviticus are *contentious* issues. Science agrees with arguments against incest and bestiality because they have *direct and measured* levels of negative impact on all parties. Homosexuality does not. You're not comparing like-with-like. 2) His point about *you* not following *all* the things in the Bible also remains valid. If you're going to throw out portions of the demands or restrictions from portions of the Bible, you have *no* argument to say that we should adhere to any of the claims in the Bible simply because the Bible tells you to. 3) You have no evidence in any sense to say that *your* god's "moral law" applies to all parties in the entire world. 4) To directly address your "civil" argument, societies have been punishing murders and other criminals for centuries before the Bible existed so your argument here is also invalid. 5) You're rather conveniently picking and choosing what "ceremonial" commands that don't make you look barbaric and entirely immoral then. 6) Your definition of "natural" is flawed. Natural means *occurs in nature*. Homosexuality was found across nature before the Bible was written making it *perfectly "natural"*. 7) Human anatomy isn't "designed" to begin with, so I could throw out this claim from this alone. Let's look at why you're completely wrong in another way though, not *all* homosexuals have sex nor is the sole purpose of modern society to reproduce. Biologically, the purpose of the *species* is to pass on genetic material through successive generations, this simply doesn't inherently apply to *all* individual organisms nor does "natural law" say anything about homosexuality being "unnatural". This also isn't an argument against being anti-marriage for homosexuals to begin with. This is your attempt at an argument for why homosexuals shouldn't exist at all. This is a passive-aggressive way of saying "homosexuals are ear-marked for death from the onset of life". I want to say that I'm sorry that you're not able to recognize your own bigotry and ignorance.
It’s not your God or my God, it’s our God - Like it or not, God is real, He made each of us on purpose, for a purpose and His moral laws (like life itself, He created morality) apply to us all because He loves each of us, and wants us all to be happy and with Him forever. Further, He will never give up on us. His mercy (another one of His creations) endures forever.
John Connell Then prove it. Also, life itself isn't a "moral law". Please read what you post before responding to me John. The god in the Bible, should it exist, has already *more* than proven he "gave up on us". God is omniscient and omnipresent meaning he *knew* the fall would happen before it did and just let it happen. He rigged the game before it started in that tale. Even if you want to argue "free will" (which I don't openly agree even *exists* let alone that we truly hold that ability), god *by definition* MUST know all outcomes and *knew* what would happen *because he created us as an "all-powerful being"*. No matter how you look at the b.s. Eden fairytale, the god of the Bible gave up on you from the *very start*.
Regarding proof, it is the atheist that owns the burden of proof, not the other way around. Most of the brightest minds throughout history (including science), along with the vast majority of the rest of us humans know the obvious truth, that God is real. I could refer you to many, many sources (if in fact you had a sincere interest), however I’m a bit skeptical.
John Connell You're absolutely incorrect. As an atheist, I define my position as 'the *rejection* of the proposition or claim of the existence of a god based on a supreme lack of evidence'. The automatic position is that there is no god until *it is proven* to exist. I'm *not* making an affirmative claim, I'm *rejecting your claim*. Also, no "science" doesn't "know" anything. Nobody that *actually* understands how science operates would even pretend to make such an insinuation. The people that operate as scientists have, in the *past*, believed that a god or gods existed, but know, with a better more accurate understanding of both philosophy and natural sciences, the overwhelming majority hold either an agnostic or gnostic *atheist* perspective. That's not to say that I hold the correct position, just that your assumption that because people *in the past* that were also scientists believed in a god, that it somehow gives your argument weight is absolutely b.s.. I would remind you that many of those scientists that believed in god *also lived in a time that admission of atheistic beliefs would get you ostracized, killed, jailed, etc.*, but I seriously doubt you care for historiography or other more factually accurate understandings of the history of philosophy and science. Historically, religion has been *anti-science* when they made *any* mention of a theory that disagreed with the Bible. Ever heard of Galileo? Do you know why he was given the ultimatum to either stop writing physics papers or to be jailed and why he subsequently choose the latter? How about why it took the Catholic church 300 years to make any kind of statement of regret and that they’ve *not* apologized formally for restriction of scientific expression based on the idea that their little book might be wrong? In the days of the great classic philosophers and scientists, people were charged with heresy at even the slightest mention of atheistic tendencies. Even agnostics were treated this way. Even during the Renaissance and Reformation periods, people were *still* strangled and burned alive for expressing different opinions than the church. To *this day*, you cannot *legally* be an outspoken or known atheist and hold public office in 7 different states in the U.S.A. You're absolutely misinformed on everything you've commented toward thus far. Inform yourself on the history and philosophy of this subject before continuing commenting John. I won't be responding if you can't do your opposition the courtesy of primary level research.
I find it very interesting to contrast the well reasoned approach of Mr. Akin and the anger and rage of Dan Savage. Dan reminds me of a bully I knew in school.
Since when has shouting insults and being prideful and arrogant gotten anybody anywhere? Using a calm tone of voice in explanations is 100% more effective then fear tactics.
Brilliant as usual Jimmy. As Bart Simpson said to Reverend Lovejoy intending to compliment him on his sermon: "I don't think God's words have ever sounded so plausible." :-)
In the event that someone is born a homosexual -- this can be argued-- this does not change morality. Everyone bears a burden of sin and everyone is tempted by the devil. It is in our free will whether or not to act upon these temptations.
@JimmyAkin certainly is interesting to find that commandments in the old testament are seperated into three different catagories.I suppose it is important to research the history, sociology, geographic and geopolitical landscape of the time period in which the old testament and new testament were wrtten and composed to get a better understand of what is being expressed, quite fascinating.
The best response when someone starts quoting bible verses at you is, "so what?" There is nothing particularly relevant or insightful about biblical lists of do's and don't's. It may be of historical, mythological, and anthropological interest, but those who clothe themselves in biblical authority are actually quite naked intellectually.
I love these comments that say: «You have to like me and approve of what I do, or else you're a stupid bigot and a retrograde, and I hate you. You must be tolerant like we are.»
"That means we have to do some sorting in looking at what the old testament has to say about different matters, we have to sort through the different commandments and prohibitions it has and figure out which ones apply today in a direct way and which don't." Who said that?
Isn't judging others negatively for perceived "sin" while continuing to sin yourself hyporcticial? (Not a rhetorical question btw). Also, do you have any chapter and verse references for the claim that we may judge others with righteousness please? I'll PM you a link to the part of my essay on this topic. Thanks for the responses.
Thank you Mr. Savage for standing up for traditional marriage at a time when doing so subjects one to ridicule from the Left. While I am not of your specific faith, I am a Christian and feel strongly that Heavenly Father designed the family as with Fathers and Mothers raising children together. I hope that Christians of every stripe (and other folks that recognize natural law) can band together despite our differences.
The psoter makes a good point when he says that caliming you don't hate gays but you hate "gay sexual behavior" is as hypocritical as saying you don't hate Jews but you hate Jewish behavior. People have a right to live their own lives. they're not telling you how to live, so why don't you mind your own business?
A significant part of his audience: It was only like...10 students...it's funny how 'Christians' will bash gay people in our statehouses but can't take the heat when they're the ones being bashed.
Nonsense. Galileo was in no position to "demand" anything from a church that had the power to torture and/or imprison him, and which DID keep him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
What makes it worse is that some people - like my mother - reject the Church's teaching on things like abortion because of the sex abuse scandals. Yet there are those who will tell you that disobeying the Church - or any authority figure for that matter - is as much a violation of the 4th commandment as disobeying one's parents. Yet Mum would never let me disobey Dad no matter how badly he treated me - not that he sexually molested me so that's something - but he could be cruel sometimes.
Except that the Bible was written by men so any argument on purely Biblical grounds is meaningless. Contrary to popular church ideology it isn’t an infallible text and also promotes slavery, polygamy, the subordination of women, stoning of children, etc. Can you defend any of that stuff?? Then you literally cannot defend homophobia. The underpinning of Scripture is Jesus and unconditional love. Stop trying to excuse bigotry in God’s name.
Hello Mr. Akin I appreciate your thoughtful and sincere approach to the statements put forth by Mr. Savage. I find that the Biblical texts are ill equipped to support arguments on morality and sexuality in a modern context. The fact that "God" has created us imperfect, yet commands us to be well through a lifetime process of supplication is sadomasochistic by definition. It's unlikely that we can solve it all on youtube, but I appreciate your commentary.
Jimmy, thanks for that. How should a Catholic respond when people talk about the penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus 18:29? It's one thing to explain homosexuality as immoral, it's more difficult trying to explain the penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus? The RSV talks about, 'the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.' The DR talks about, 'shall perish from the midst of his people.'
I don't have any specific documents to cite, but the fact that traditionally the woman was 'given' to the man by her father, the fact that her property became her husband's etcetera seem to suggest misogyny to me.
Not quite sure what the cheery picking is here, he laid it out just fine... However it is ridiculous to say that something is immoral simply because it is unnatural. Soda is unnatural too, but it's not immoral to drink soda. Learn logic Catholics!
Drinking a soda doesn't have moral implications; gay sex does. Stop trying to reduce everything down to black and white, and start praying for wisdom instead. Not all things are equal-even your faulty logic should have told you that much.
true perhaps, but what i have in mind is intrinsic evils. A mildly unhealthy consumption isn't an intrinsic evil, however sex outside of true marriage is. I'm just upset at how the Catholics i see (to clarify, i am one) only say; "it's wrong because it's unnatural..." And then just stop there.
All that being said, as a friend of mine put it ever so insightfully a few minutes ago when I posted on facebook how sick I am of hearing obnoxious, self-centered Christians blather on stupidly about how Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, masturbation is ALSO a relationship, and Christianity probably does have more in common with masturbation than it does with anything noble, holy, and sacred as found in religion.
QUOTE: 'They should all get together and find themselves an Island somewhere and leave the rest of us alone." Nothing is preventing you from doing that yourself. Why don't you?
Homosexual sex can be as tender, nurturing and oriented toward life-long committment as heterosexual sex. It is governments responsibility to help gays establish a tradition of monogamy by recognizeing gay marriage instead of forcing them to lead lives on the outskirts of society.
True. I came here from a video of this man's about whether Christians should be vegetarians. As a vegan, a beard-lover and someone who is interested in (particularly Gnostic) Christianity, I thought that it would be a good thing to watch. I found my way here from there. I commented because I think that he would be happier if he accepted homosexuality as amoral.
I've read MANY books in my lifetime. Oh dear. If I believed every word I read, let alone LIVED my life according to their doctrine, I most likely would have become a tired TIRED victim of lies and outdated rhetoric, which in fact causes in innate form of terrorism. So deeply entrenched (because, like you people, who have absolutely no idea how to make up your own mind) that my hatred would become an integral part of my very being. You people have no grasp on the real world. You are sheep. This is the 21st century. Hatred, any form of prejudice, against our fellow neighbors on planet Earth, will ultimately lead to acts of terrorism, be that passive (as practiced here) or aggressive (as in LETHAL crimes against humanity in the name of religion). Shame on you people. Love, in all its incarnations, should be let free. You're own hate and prejudice will destroy you. Sad
To say that God is immoral is to place an absolute morality above God. Which is by definition incorrect. God isn't Zeus, who is subject to a universal truth. God is the Truth.
The judge between competing sets of moral values is us. That is what debate involves. You appear to imply that our values cannot be individually debated and discussed. They can. Either "equal by default" is agreed upon or not agreed upon. If we disagree, we debate it. If not, we use that agreed principal as a foundation for resolving other disagreements (e.g. ss marriage). argh you're sending soo many comments I'm going to have to PM lol. Thanks for the comments anyway.
It is the historical foundation of marriage. Today, it is not quite the case, but that is because marriage is being changed and ultimately destroyed. The concept of 'gay marriage' is a sign of this.
We are not debating "bible prophecies"-- we are criticizing you for bullying gay Americans who have done nothing against you. Dan Savage was right when he pointed out that fundamentalists ignore some bible verses while useing others as an excuse to abuse gays.
Society is more just and less violent today than it was in more religious times. When your ideas were more dominant, human suffering was greater than it is today, and where your ideas still hold sway, in the Middle East and the American Bible Belt, people are more ignorant, poorer, and in worse turmoil than in saner societies.
I disagree. I don't think that marriage is the foundation of our society. I think that society should and can be based upon caring for one another, rather than for only your family.
Thanks for the link. But it didn't answer any of my questions. It doesn't say if St. Paul was a homophobic; it doesn't say if he wrote that on Romans to be liked by the Romans; it doesn't say in which part of the Gospels Jesus condemned homosexuality; and it doesn't say why something repeated on the Bible must be legitimate today. I'll tell you which parts of the Bible I think are legitimate: The Law, love your neighbour as yourself, love God above all things.
Even after the Civil Rights struggle was largely won in the late 1960s, some white christian southern conservatives were still hoping that it could be defeated, and racial equality laws turned back to early 20th century standards, and they were terribly frustrated when they realized they were wrong. You are suffering from anxiety as Americans move past the prejudices of the past with regard to gays-- even in the conservative South.
You have done a very thoughtful and caring response, and I applaud you for that. And I have to agree with its4it, however. So many people will try to misrepresent, badmouth, and just plain lie about what you said. But be strong, man, and keep the faith. Your words may get through some, and may be instrumental in their salvation.
Sage words, indeed on the issue of law. Thanks you. What about the creed of Jesus in Mark 12:29, hardly a Trinitarian creed, do you think? Why is the church then "off base" on something so fundamental?
Am I incorrect? Leviticus does NOT condemn all homosexuality; only male homosexuality appears to be condemned. Leviticus details both sexes in its condemnation of bestiality but not in this issue. Lesbianism seems to be OK for the millenia until the writing of Romans. In 1 Corinthians and in 1 Timothy only male homosexuality is condemned.... but these were written after Romans? What's with that?
The Church instantly knew that this was nonsense, and condemn him. They did nothing, however, to condemn the theory. Copies of the Galileo's thesis remained in circulation amongst the Scholars of the Church. It's easy to look back in hindsight, and scoff at people for not INSTANTLY accepting something we today know to be true. At the time it was only a novel theory, with not much to predicate it on, just as theories dealing with the structure and lives of black holes.
With all due respect, this critique of Dan Savage is pretty weak tea. Yes, there are some laws in Leviticus we live by - ALL moral people, not just Christians, which should tell you something important. He's obviously referring to the ridiculous laws that no one follows, like the endorsement of stoning (Lev. 20:27), eating locusts (Lev. 11:22), prohibition on mixed fibers (Lev. 19:19), and my personal favorite: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads" (Lev 19:27). Do you follow these?
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24" What about that?
"Church had no moral right to torture or imprison anyone, "bullshit" or not." He wasn't tortured. "Morally", that's up for debate, and one point we may even agree on, "legally", the man lived in a country that ceded to Church authority, so it's self-explanatory. "The argument was based primarily, not on waves, but upon the movement of the stars" That's not how Galileo tried to sell it in 1633, you need to look it up. He also argued from the Agustine standpoint it did not counter scripture.
I'd agree that Dan Savage makes this argument badly, but there are many more cogently argued versions, and this video is a bit of a straw-man argument for picking this weaker version. Jesus commanded unequivocally that all the Old Testament laws remain in full force (quotes below from Matthew and Luke). He never said anything about a hierarchy of laws in which some could be disregarded. Jesus was quite clear on this. I would go with the words of Jesus in the Gospels, rather than Paul's interpretation (or your interpretation of Paul), especially since the Gospels are quoting Jesus, and Paul does not. However, even if you accept Paul's idea (or maybe it's your idea) that moral laws are the only laws that remain in full force, a substantial number of Christians are still hypocrites on the Bible's moral law, namely the prohibition against divorce and remarriage (see quote from Luke below). There are many divorced and remarried Christians who would still condemn gay people for living as openly gay people, which is utter hypocrisy if you believe that the Bible's moral code is absolute. From Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." From Luke 16:17-18: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." So you see, it is fair to argue hypocrisy. Christians should be decrying divorce just as loudly as gay marriage; but divorce is a not an issue Christians rally around. They don't because this is a moral law that would seriously harm them, their family or their neighbours.
There quite lot of people in the comment section not acting objective, reasonable, or friendly. I urge all of you whether you agree with or disagree with what Jimmy Akin had to say to stop using rhetorical attacks and starting thinking about the line of reasoning he is using.
This guy is very smart.
So nice to see a Christian speak against homosexuality calmly and logically! It's a great contrast to most videos on the subject one finds on TH-cam.
(As a gay guy, it's refreshing to meet people like you, and I thank you profusely for your support. Meeting Christians who actually follow the words of Jesus instead of the twisted and perverse Evangelical Agenda is refreshing. It's truly sad when you must describe someone who actually practices their faith instead of bending it to their disgusting agenda as refreshing, when it should be the norm.)
I am glad you got to see one of us doing it well for once. More people need to love
The Christian understanding has always been that this was a ritual requirement as it involves the concept of cleanliness. The cleanliness requirements of the Mosaic Law were surpassed in the Christian era. It's the same as the food laws, where some foods were regarded under the Mosaic Law as unclean (e.g., pork). There is a difference between something being ritually unclean and something being fundamentally immoral. Hope this helps!
"Machine Gun Apologetics" - thank you, you've put a name to a tactic I've seen used over and over.
+Dennis Mahon
I hate it when they use that tactic because then it makes me sad that they think that they can take scripture out of context.
Slavery was different 3000 years ago. In fact, the hebrew word used as slave, was "eved", which means bondservant. If someone was in debt, they could go into 'slavery', and once they had enough money, they could leave their master.
Dennis Mahon
Also known as “jamming.”
Wow Zachary, I'm so impressed you know about certain historical contexts in which Biblical terms were used. Apply that same principle to "arsenokoites" and "malokoi" and we'll all be on the same page!
Awesome video Jimmy. God bless. We should all pray for Dan and anyone who is struggling with SSA. It is not an easy cross to bare but if we put our trust in God we can do anything.
Please, all you people do is try to justify your discrimination with a bronze age book of fairy tails! Not being able to discriminate is NOT discrimination.
Leo Roberts
What’s wrong with bronze, or the metals which go into it? Do you want to go back to the Stone Age?
What’s so bizarre in what you say is that I’ll bet you defer to the American Native cultures as equal to or superior to modern culture, when those ARE stone-age cultures.
Thank you for this clear and concise message that is not antagonistic, against what Dan Savage had to say. I really appreciate it when "internet" people put out reasonable intelligent arguments rather than stomping their foot and saying, 'cuz i said so!'. Blessings!
EXCELLANT video, well explained and done with kindness. Thank you, very enlightening
Jimmy, thanks for this video. As a gay Catholic, I would like to hear you speak to the issue of gays in the Catholic faith and Church. Many feel as though the marriage issue is extended to an attack on their sexuality and personhood, and not just the sexual act or the issue of marriage, and feel as though the church does not want them. I know that is not true, but it would be nice to hear that issue addressed and developed more fully.
Who the heck is Dan Savage?
*****
Oh. I honestly had never heard of him.
*****
Sometimes I miss a lot of what is going on because I haven't watched TV in about seven years and I don't get any newspapers or magazines.
Dan Savage is the appointee to speak out against bullying in schools. He also happens to be a major pro-gay advocate. While speaking at schools against bullying, he relentlessly bullies Christian students. Both ironic and hypocritical...and a disgusting example of a man proposing to "advocate" for anyone.
***** Mr. Savage questions the bible and personal (mis)intepretations of the bible by people like you, Leo... Questioning your stance is not attacking by any means
David Manthei Please tell me where Mr. Savage :"bullied" students who walked out?
Even Savage's Philemon/Onesimus reference is answerable. S's complaint is that Paul doesn't ask Philemon to set his slave free. This is an ahistorical complaint. Paul is in a situation where slavery is practised by that society. He accepted that but he also appealed to Philemon to treat his runaway Onesimus as "a brother". In that time, such an attitude was unthinkable. Paul stays within his context but his appeal is used by Christians later in history to destroy slavery in the UK and the US!
This is an excellent expatiation about the Gospels and God's Law. You did a fantastic job here! Thank you!!
Yes I work in the Pro-Life movement, showing people what abortion actually is (torn up pieces of unborn children), and still people will shrug it off either by saying, "well there are such hard cases", or just being vile. In front of them is a child who had been murdered and their response is only that of hate or coldness.
okay Dan I understand what you are saying. But on the other hand we do not see a group of adulterers getting out here demanding rights to be able to commit adultery and being very aggressive calling JESUS all manner of bad names ect.
No; but we do see a lot of Christians 'getting out there' and persistently justifying themselves for breaking the commandment Jesus left us all: that we love one another as he loved us.
Where is there room in this explicit commandment for support of the death penalty, for example? The Catholic Church, of which Jimmy Akin is a member, does not rule out recourse to it and has morally supported its use for many centuries. (In fact, popes at one time employed their own executioners, tomwhom they paid 3 lire per decapitation.)
A Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus does not hate anyone.
Beautifully said. Thanks Jim. God Bless🙏🏻
My home provides food and shelter for those who have fallen on hard times. And by my reading of history I see that Christianity has been the biggest player in promoting the kind of behavior that you have stated in your last comment.
When I was an atheist, I did not have such altruistic pursuits and when I talk to atheists that do, they convey a spirit of simply trying to show Christians that they can treat others well without Christianity. But Christianity there is still their driving force.
Awesome video. Thank you for sharing the word...the Truth in 2014.
If you’re having problems with Deuteronomy 20, I suggest you try searching a commentary. Just type in “Deuteronomy 20 Commentary”. Hopefully you find a good one. It’s funny when I hear people site certain bible passages as being horrible savagery, because when the home work is put in, they usually come to find that, compared to the times, the Israelites/or Christians were actually making giant leaps forward with their laws. I’m willing to bet you’ll find the same with this book and chapter.
Thanks for the great work you do, Jimmy! Keep it up. :)
Gen 2:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Just trust the Bible, even if you don't always agree with it. It's the only reliable source we have.
Reliable source for what? The bible is one of the most blood-thirsty documents on the planet, perhaps only slightly less so than the qu'ran, which was inspired by the bible. No thanks. I would not trust the bible if it was the last book on the planet.
Just trust the Bible? Are you really this stupid? The Bible was written by ignorant people who didn't eve know the earth revolved around the sun. It supports slavery and recommends all kinds of mind numbing barbarism. Moron!!
If you actually take time to read the bible, you will see there is absolutely nothing within it to suggest that it was written by an omniscient, omnipotent, creator. Every single word was obviously written by ignorant people who thought that the earth was the center of the universe. There is nothing particularly useful in the Bible at all. There are all kinds of instructions of how to sacrifice animals and why we should kill people for being homosexual or “non-virgins” or for being obstreperous teenagers. I could get any normal nine year old in this country to improve the Ten Commandments on moral terms in five minutes. Many of the books included in the New Testament have been identified by every credible Bible scholar on the planet as pseudepigrapha or outright forgery. Every Christian apologist bowdlerizes the Bible which proves that even the strictest fundamentalist can’t take God at His word.
I feel sorry for you and people like you because it's obvious you are an uneducated, ignorant, credulous, and deluded robot of a person. The one thing that separates us from all other animal species is our ability to think critically and idiots like you choose not to. Sad.
cage chimps Well this last comment just shows how fucking stupid, you are. I have read and studied the Bible for many years. I’m sure I could run rings around an idiot like you regarding Bible knowledge. The Bible supports slavery in the Old Testament and the New. It is self refuting in hundreds of places. I especially enjoy this pearl of wisdom that is found in Deuteronomy 22 20-21. I want nothing to do with worshiping a “God” that recommends such horrific barbarism. You should be ashamed of yourself if you do.
Their slavery was carefully defined and all sorts of restrictions were placed on the 'ownership' of the person. In fact, it has been said that OT slavery was little worse than what could be described as an indentured worker. Many slaves put themselves voluntarily into slavery to work off their debts. Now what do we do with such people? Some of them wind up in gaol! Find me one reference in the OT about gaols. These unenlightened people in the OT didn't have them!
Sexual attraction is a normal natural process. The same sex attraction is what makes one homosexual, not the physical act of sex which occurs far more frequently between hetrosexuals anyway per capita, your final point is irrelevant on many levels.
It is a fallacy to use what you think is normal in nature as a moral argument. Nature is pragmatic in how organisms evolve, it has no moral guideline or goal, hence it is unwise to try to link the two.
Stick with your bible to support bigotry, but keep nature out of it.
"Homosexual acts are seen as unnatural because the body parts aren't being used for their inherent purposes."
According to who? They have more than one function, and give pleasure too, which is a natural function.
There is nothing unnatural about using cocaine or eating a box of donuts daily, its just unwise.
Homosexuality is not about having sex anally either, its about being attracted to the same sex. Lesbians are homosexual too, how do they fall into your narrow doctrine, or are you only bigotted against men.
Your last comment does not even make sense, calling a religious doctrine bigotted does not make me bigotted anymore than saying that most segments of Christianity, for centuries, promoted antisemitism, makes me, the accuser, anti-semetic.
Do you even know what bigotted means?
merriam-webster.com defines it as 'a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc'. I think that is a bit more accurate as you could use your definition to apply to anyone who disagrees with anyone on those topics.
The 'unfairly' part is particularly relevant.
I am not intolerant of other beliefs I don't share as a whole, but there are some that cross the line between being merely different to being cruel or unjust. I assume you are 'intolerant' towards child mutilations done by some religions? or do you not care about those children?
I suppose the slavery supported in scientology is fine by you too, or the idea that any suffering of a child is deserved in some hindu traditions according to karma? You don't have to be tolerant to every belief everyone has if it does not warrant toleration just because it is linked to a religion or political party. Perhaps you are tolerant of the KKK's bigotry?
BTW I was a catholic, I had no free will to join, I was MADE a catholic without my consent, and heavily indoctrinated into it by parents, priests and society. Only when I educated myself in history, philosophy and science was I able to step away from the church and finally the faith in my 30's.
The sex act is not exclusively homosexual either, and are carried out by hetrosexuals too (in far greater percentages). You ignored lesbians seemingly in your reply too.
If you have a problem with anal sex, that is fine, but you don't get to use your phobia to attack the rights of a group of people on their sexual preferences.
What two consenting adults do in their own home is up to them. If they ask you to take part, then you get to voice an opinion about your own preferences and be taken seriously.
and it is the right of others, like myself, to point out that the morality that catholics are using is bigoted because it is unfair and unjust.
Yes they have the right to hold their beliefs, just like the KKK have their rights to oppose mixed marriages and the scientologists oppose mixed religious marriages.
Catholics do force their beliefs on non catholics by voting enmass according to those beliefs, which are based on your theology not logic or reason.
As far as 'free' is concerned, priests browbeat them from pulpits and threaten them with hellfire. Yeah, some 'free' will. If you hold a gun to someones head and ask for money, its their 'free' will to give it to you. (sarcasm implied.)
And a final word on the 'forced' part. What do you call it but being brought in without consent to fulfill archane rituals you have no understanding of? How is that NOT forced.
And my parents have been indoctrinated and threatened by the church, as have THEIR parents, so pretending the church is blameless is extremely dishonest.
It reminds me of the priest in my country saying that it was the mothers of the rape victims that were REALLY at fault, not the Church, for not revealing the crimes sooner, when the church browbeat and threatened and blackmailed parents into submission for decades.
"Catholics use more logic and reason than you can imagine." I am from Ireland, with a 85% catholic population. If you mean that people who hold the catholic faith can use reason and logic in everyday lives. Sure, I never said otherwise. But as far as justifying their faith, no... not even remotely.
They think Lewis makes sense for crying out loud.
"Catholics in America do not "force" their beliefs onto people." REALLY? So you don't baptise your children according to the doctrines of your faith, demand that the parents raise their children in that faith, have ongoing cerimonies that reinforce it?
In Ireland the church controls 90% of the schools, priests have their hands in everything and our catholic politicans have enacted blasphemy laws. They also have massive corruption and the priest I mentioned did not say it was the victims fault, but the mother of the victims fault for not making the abuses public.
They tried to hide behind the confessional, and have threatened children and parents, they refuse to pay most of the compensation and still try to shirk off their responsibilities.
I know genuine priests that have come back from missions and broke down and cried at how the Church has failed them, god and their communities.
Tell me one reasonable reason for your faith?
I was raised by catholics, live surrounded by catholics, have family and friends who are catholic, have priests and nuns in my family and was very religious at one stage. I stopped believing for good reasons, and have never been given a single reason to think that catholicism is correct since.
AMomentOfClarity2011
Sounds like you're the bigot here...
Wonderful video & response, also I would like to share with Mr. Akin the same sympathy toward Mr. Savage plus pray to our Loving Heavenly Father for him & everyone suffering from any sin or temptation (including myself) so that He grants all of us His sufficient Grace to overcome all sins & temptations, & lead us to His Life-giving Truth in Jesus name, Amen.
God bless you Jimmy Akin & keep up the good work
so should all divorced woman be stoned to death? jesus never cleaned that up, in fact he agreed they should be. why do christians not belive in that today? because over time they realized it was wrong, that women deserve the right to divorce and shouldnt be punished. im not a christian myself, i have a mix of different beliefs but im closest to Buddhism, but the old testament said thered be a savior, and that savior, jesus, changed old testament rules. the bible then said that jesus, gods ONLY son, will return to earth at the end of earth. that means there wont be any direct messages from god anymore. that means its up to christians to change what god said before to what would best fit the world now. gods words from the old testament and jesus's words from the new do not apply anymore, there simply a guideline you are free to edit and manipulate for the good of humanity. just like christians edited gods word on divorce, you should do the same on homosexuality, premarital sex(which really shouldnt apply anyway considering people where getting married back then at the age there having premarital sex now), and even consensual incest with contraception to prevent children being born with disabilities. jesus taught love, not laws, so you should follow the path of love, not laws.
wow This is why not to do Bible study with atheists!!! Joe I'm just going to admit from the start I'm inadequate to correct your misconceptions. Seek help professionally! Biblical hermeneutic's is not my one of my strength, nor yours apparently!!!
If your going to comment on a page you should at-least take the time and effort to connect and understand to the subject material. I knew fundamental atheist were making a straw-man God so that they could pretend to defeat him. This however is a whole new level. It is hard to take seriously, except with the lies spread about Jesus these days. I suspect you are serious in misconceptions of your statement!!
lmaoyourekiddingme www.answering-christianity.com/bible_adultery.htm
Richard Peterson www.answering-christianity.com/bible_adultery.htm
lmaoyourekiddingme and is pot smoking really so unholy? Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. Ephesians 5:18 - And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Mark 7:18 - 7:20 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.(this means no drugs can make you a worse person unless they make you act like a worse person, and considering the fact that the only thing in the world a stoner is a threat to is cake, pot smoking isnt bad) Revelation 22:1-2 “On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.”
your forgetting the verse about using all plants. unless you can find a verse that specificly says cannabis is bad, i think you should stop saying bad things about weed. and i didnt say you should do destructive things to yourself, i said i shouldnt judge you based on what you do to yourself as long as your not hurting anyone else. i dont think anyone should do coke or H but unless its causing you to harm others(example a crackhead mom buying crack instead of food for her starving kid) im not gonna treat you like a bad person for it. i dont know why the hell anyone would drink bloods with AIDS in it, gas, or bleach, or eat poop but as long as your not spreading that AIDS i dont see why its our duty to hurt them more. no i dont think you should do any of those self destructive things, but im not gonna hurt you more cuz you did it. cannabalize other human beings? that kills people,making it bad. if it didnt kill people,theres no problem with it, but it does, making it not apply to this. yes i am a teen, no im not a high school dropout, and i do in fact have a hell of a life ahead of me. our current president is a former pot smoker. einstein was a regular pot smoker. plenty of succesfull people smoked.
I love how you present it. You didn't show anger buy compassion and intellogence. Kudos
I am edified by the narrative starting at around minute 3:20
What we need is a video of Dan Savage and Jimmy Akin in a debate on this part of the Old Testament.
I know it won't happen because gay activists are not inclined to engage in real dialogue that exposes their distortion tactics. They have become very good at pretending to know scripture but their narrative only succeeds on uninformed minds, usually young minds. Dan gets away with what he says because he speaks to teens.
as usual, your research of scripture was fascinating. God bless you for not shrinking on this subject.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7
All good points, Jimmy. Sadly, I can say from personal experience that some people just won't listen.
Way to avoid the issue. When a small person can't deal with their shortcomings and move on, they often deflect. If you don't care about being held accountable for calling someone a pervert- don't do it.
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Author Frantz Fanon
Excellent explanation which puts a proper perspective on Biblical text and boldly faces the calamitous nature of those who would put forward the equality of life choices when no such equation can exist but for the mistaken will of individuals who wish to walk away from right reason and everlasting love.
1) None of what you brought up as talking points for other objections in Leviticus are *contentious* issues. Science agrees with arguments against incest and bestiality because they have *direct and measured* levels of negative impact on all parties. Homosexuality does not. You're not comparing like-with-like.
2) His point about *you* not following *all* the things in the Bible also remains valid. If you're going to throw out portions of the demands or restrictions from portions of the Bible, you have *no* argument to say that we should adhere to any of the claims in the Bible simply because the Bible tells you to.
3) You have no evidence in any sense to say that *your* god's "moral law" applies to all parties in the entire world.
4) To directly address your "civil" argument, societies have been punishing murders and other criminals for centuries before the Bible existed so your argument here is also invalid.
5) You're rather conveniently picking and choosing what "ceremonial" commands that don't make you look barbaric and entirely immoral then.
6) Your definition of "natural" is flawed. Natural means *occurs in nature*. Homosexuality was found across nature before the Bible was written making it *perfectly "natural"*.
7) Human anatomy isn't "designed" to begin with, so I could throw out this claim from this alone. Let's look at why you're completely wrong in another way though, not *all* homosexuals have sex nor is the sole purpose of modern society to reproduce. Biologically, the purpose of the *species* is to pass on genetic material through successive generations, this simply doesn't inherently apply to *all* individual organisms nor does "natural law" say anything about homosexuality being "unnatural". This also isn't an argument against being anti-marriage for homosexuals to begin with. This is your attempt at an argument for why homosexuals shouldn't exist at all. This is a passive-aggressive way of saying "homosexuals are ear-marked for death from the onset of life".
I want to say that I'm sorry that you're not able to recognize your own bigotry and ignorance.
It’s not your God or my God, it’s our God - Like it or not, God is real, He made each of us on purpose, for a purpose and His moral laws (like life itself, He created morality) apply to us all because He loves each of us, and wants us all to be happy and with Him forever. Further, He will never give up on us. His mercy (another one of His creations) endures forever.
John Connell Then prove it.
Also, life itself isn't a "moral law". Please read what you post before responding to me John.
The god in the Bible, should it exist, has already *more* than proven he "gave up on us". God is omniscient and omnipresent meaning he *knew* the fall would happen before it did and just let it happen. He rigged the game before it started in that tale. Even if you want to argue "free will" (which I don't openly agree even *exists* let alone that we truly hold that ability), god *by definition* MUST know all outcomes and *knew* what would happen *because he created us as an "all-powerful being"*.
No matter how you look at the b.s. Eden fairytale, the god of the Bible gave up on you from the *very start*.
Regarding proof, it is the atheist that owns the burden of proof, not the other way around. Most of the brightest minds throughout history (including science), along with the vast majority of the rest of us humans know the obvious truth, that God is real. I could refer you to many, many sources (if in fact you had a sincere interest), however I’m a bit skeptical.
John Connell You're absolutely incorrect. As an atheist, I define my position as 'the *rejection* of the proposition or claim of the existence of a god based on a supreme lack of evidence'. The automatic position is that there is no god until *it is proven* to exist. I'm *not* making an affirmative claim, I'm *rejecting your claim*. Also, no "science" doesn't "know" anything.
Nobody that *actually* understands how science operates would even pretend to make such an insinuation. The people that operate as scientists have, in the *past*, believed that a god or gods existed, but know, with a better more accurate understanding of both philosophy and natural sciences, the overwhelming majority hold either an agnostic or gnostic *atheist* perspective. That's not to say that I hold the correct position, just that your assumption that because people *in the past* that were also scientists believed in a god, that it somehow gives your argument weight is absolutely b.s..
I would remind you that many of those scientists that believed in god *also lived in a time that admission of atheistic beliefs would get you ostracized, killed, jailed, etc.*, but I seriously doubt you care for historiography or other more factually accurate understandings of the history of philosophy and science. Historically, religion has been *anti-science* when they made *any* mention of a theory that disagreed with the Bible. Ever heard of Galileo? Do you know why he was given the ultimatum to either stop writing physics papers or to be jailed and why he subsequently choose the latter? How about why it took the Catholic church 300 years to make any kind of statement of regret and that they’ve *not* apologized formally for restriction of scientific expression based on the idea that their little book might be wrong? In the days of the great classic philosophers and scientists, people were charged with heresy at even the slightest mention of atheistic tendencies. Even agnostics were treated this way. Even during the Renaissance and Reformation periods, people were *still* strangled and burned alive for expressing different opinions than the church. To *this day*, you cannot *legally* be an outspoken or known atheist and hold public office in 7 different states in the U.S.A.
You're absolutely misinformed on everything you've commented toward thus far. Inform yourself on the history and philosophy of this subject before continuing commenting John. I won't be responding if you can't do your opposition the courtesy of primary level research.
I find it very interesting to contrast the well reasoned approach of Mr. Akin and the anger and rage of Dan Savage. Dan reminds me of a bully I knew in school.
Since when has shouting insults and being prideful and arrogant gotten anybody anywhere? Using a calm tone of voice in explanations is 100% more effective then fear tactics.
This is a very good and very reasoned response to what I consider to be a juvenile tirade on the behalf of Savage. Very classy.
Brilliant as usual Jimmy. As Bart Simpson said to Reverend Lovejoy intending to compliment him on his sermon: "I don't think God's words have ever sounded so plausible." :-)
Quintessential Jimmy Akin. Brilliance with real world application and always,always kindness.
Thank you so much Jimmy!!!
In the event that someone is born a homosexual -- this can be argued-- this does not change morality. Everyone bears a burden of sin and everyone is tempted by the devil. It is in our free will whether or not to act upon these temptations.
@JimmyAkin
certainly is interesting to find that commandments in the old testament are seperated into three different catagories.I suppose it is important to research the history, sociology, geographic and geopolitical landscape of the time period in which the old testament and new testament were wrtten and composed to get a better understand of what is being expressed, quite fascinating.
The best response when someone starts quoting bible verses at you is, "so what?" There is nothing particularly relevant or insightful about biblical lists of do's and don't's. It may be of historical, mythological, and anthropological interest, but those who clothe themselves in biblical authority are actually quite naked intellectually.
I love these comments that say: «You have to like me and approve of what I do, or else you're a stupid bigot and a retrograde, and I hate you. You must be tolerant like we are.»
"That means we have to do some sorting in looking at what the old testament has to say about different matters, we have to sort through the different commandments and prohibitions it has and figure out which ones apply today in a direct way and which don't."
Who said that?
Isn't judging others negatively for perceived "sin" while continuing to sin yourself hyporcticial? (Not a rhetorical question btw). Also, do you have any chapter and verse references for the claim that we may judge others with righteousness please?
I'll PM you a link to the part of my essay on this topic. Thanks for the responses.
Another fantastic reasoned response, Jimmy!
Thank you Mr. Savage for standing up for traditional marriage at a time when doing so subjects one to ridicule from the Left. While I am not of your specific faith, I am a Christian and feel strongly that Heavenly Father designed the family as with Fathers and Mothers raising children together. I hope that Christians of every stripe (and other folks that recognize natural law) can band together despite our differences.
The "promise" of damnation is not found in the Bible and exists nowhere except in the hateful hearts of those who make such threats.
Great presentation
Adultry is Not a Crime, it's a Civil Issue, as in Grounds for Divorce.
The psoter makes a good point when he says that caliming you don't hate gays but you hate "gay sexual behavior" is as hypocritical as saying you don't hate Jews but you hate Jewish behavior. People have a right to live their own lives. they're not telling you how to live, so why don't you mind your own business?
Threats of eternal damnation are the last refuge of someone who has lost an argument.
I don't really watch films involving monarchs. The tradition of the man asking the woman's father for permission to marry her is common knowledge.
thank God! Great response. Helped clear some misconceptions in my head as well.
A significant part of his audience: It was only like...10 students...it's funny how 'Christians' will bash gay people in our statehouses but can't take the heat when they're the ones being bashed.
All humans have the same "eternal destiny"-- to use that as an excuse to be a bully in the present is the height of hypocrisy.
It is an act of imitation.
It is an act born out of frustration.
It is a dysfunctional and incomplete act.
Nonsense. Galileo was in no position to "demand" anything from a church that had the power to torture and/or imprison him, and which DID keep him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.
This is awesome! Thanks Jimmy
Thank you Jimmy. Keep up the good work.
What makes it worse is that some people - like my mother - reject the Church's teaching on things like abortion because of the sex abuse scandals. Yet there are those who will tell you that disobeying the Church - or any authority figure for that matter - is as much a violation of the 4th commandment as disobeying one's parents. Yet Mum would never let me disobey Dad no matter how badly he treated me - not that he sexually molested me so that's something - but he could be cruel sometimes.
Except that the Bible was written by men so any argument on purely Biblical grounds is meaningless. Contrary to popular church ideology it isn’t an infallible text and also promotes slavery, polygamy, the subordination of women, stoning of children, etc. Can you defend any of that stuff?? Then you literally cannot defend homophobia. The underpinning of Scripture is Jesus and unconditional love. Stop trying to excuse bigotry in God’s name.
Hello Mr. Akin I appreciate your thoughtful and sincere approach to the statements put forth by Mr. Savage.
I find that the Biblical texts are ill equipped to support arguments on morality and sexuality in a modern context.
The fact that "God" has created us imperfect, yet commands us to be well through a lifetime process of supplication is sadomasochistic by definition.
It's unlikely that we can solve it all on youtube, but I appreciate your commentary.
great video!
Jimmy, thanks for that. How should a Catholic respond when people talk about the penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus 18:29? It's one thing to explain homosexuality as immoral, it's more difficult trying to explain the penalty for homosexuality in Leviticus? The RSV talks about, 'the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.' The DR talks about, 'shall perish from the midst of his people.'
I don't have any specific documents to cite, but the fact that traditionally the woman was 'given' to the man by her father, the fact that her property became her husband's etcetera seem to suggest misogyny to me.
Not quite sure what the cheery picking is here, he laid it out just fine...
However it is ridiculous to say that something is immoral simply because it is unnatural. Soda is unnatural too, but it's not immoral to drink soda. Learn logic Catholics!
Soda should be immoral for what it does to your body,thus defiling the temple of the Holy Spirit ! That is if you have the Spirit.
Drinking a soda doesn't have moral implications; gay sex does. Stop trying to reduce everything down to black and white, and start praying for wisdom instead. Not all things are equal-even your faulty logic should have told you that much.
Well i am on Catholics side of this issue, but i'm repulsed by the severe ambiguity of logic that most outspoken Catholics use.
true perhaps, but what i have in mind is intrinsic evils. A mildly unhealthy consumption isn't an intrinsic evil, however sex outside of true marriage is. I'm just upset at how the Catholics i see (to clarify, i am one) only say; "it's wrong because it's unnatural..." And then just stop there.
How do you figure Soda to be unnatural?
Unnatural and not occurring in nature are two different things.
Artificial and unnatural also.
Please keep posting; you're only helping my argument xD
All that being said, as a friend of mine put it ever so insightfully a few minutes ago when I posted on facebook how sick I am of hearing obnoxious, self-centered Christians blather on stupidly about how Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship, masturbation is ALSO a relationship, and Christianity probably does have more in common with masturbation than it does with anything noble, holy, and sacred as found in religion.
QUOE: "Your "good time" will eventually end."
So will yours, if you can call yours a "good time" in the first place.
QUOTE: 'They should all get together and find themselves an Island somewhere and leave the rest of us alone."
Nothing is preventing you from doing that yourself. Why don't you?
Homosexual sex can be as tender, nurturing and oriented toward life-long committment as heterosexual sex. It is governments responsibility to help gays establish a tradition of monogamy by recognizeing gay marriage instead of forcing them to lead lives on the outskirts of society.
True.
I came here from a video of this man's about whether Christians should be vegetarians. As a vegan, a beard-lover and someone who is interested in (particularly Gnostic) Christianity, I thought that it would be a good thing to watch. I found my way here from there. I commented because I think that he would be happier if he accepted homosexuality as amoral.
Jesus said ... "If you love me, obey my commandments!" No Obedience = No Love of God = No Salvation!
I've read MANY books in my lifetime. Oh dear. If I believed every word I read, let alone LIVED my life according to their doctrine, I most likely would have become a tired TIRED victim of lies and outdated rhetoric, which in fact causes in innate form of terrorism. So deeply entrenched (because, like you people, who have absolutely no idea how to make up your own mind) that my hatred would become an integral part of my very being. You people have no grasp on the real world. You are sheep. This is the 21st century. Hatred, any form of prejudice, against our fellow neighbors on planet Earth, will ultimately lead to acts of terrorism, be that passive (as practiced here) or aggressive (as in LETHAL crimes against humanity in the name of religion). Shame on you people. Love, in all its incarnations, should be let free. You're own hate and prejudice will destroy you. Sad
To say that God is immoral is to place an absolute morality above God. Which is by definition incorrect. God isn't Zeus, who is subject to a universal truth. God is the Truth.
The judge between competing sets of moral values is us. That is what debate involves. You appear to imply that our values cannot be individually debated and discussed. They can. Either "equal by default" is agreed upon or not agreed upon. If we disagree, we debate it. If not, we use that agreed principal as a foundation for resolving other disagreements (e.g. ss marriage). argh you're sending soo many comments I'm going to have to PM lol. Thanks for the comments anyway.
It is the historical foundation of marriage. Today, it is not quite the case, but that is because marriage is being changed and ultimately destroyed. The concept of 'gay marriage' is a sign of this.
We are not debating "bible prophecies"-- we are criticizing you for bullying gay Americans who have done nothing against you. Dan Savage was right when he pointed out that fundamentalists ignore some bible verses while useing others as an excuse to abuse gays.
Society is more just and less violent today than it was in more religious times. When your ideas were more dominant, human suffering was greater than it is today, and where your ideas still hold sway, in the Middle East and the American Bible Belt, people are more ignorant, poorer, and in worse turmoil than in saner societies.
I disagree. I don't think that marriage is the foundation of our society. I think that society should and can be based upon caring for one another, rather than for only your family.
Thanks for the link. But it didn't answer any of my questions. It doesn't say if St. Paul was a homophobic; it doesn't say if he wrote that on Romans to be liked by the Romans; it doesn't say in which part of the Gospels Jesus condemned homosexuality; and it doesn't say why something repeated on the Bible must be legitimate today. I'll tell you which parts of the Bible I think are legitimate: The Law, love your neighbour as yourself, love God above all things.
Even after the Civil Rights struggle was largely won in the late 1960s, some white christian southern conservatives were still hoping that it could be defeated, and racial equality laws turned back to early 20th century standards, and they were terribly frustrated when they realized they were wrong. You are suffering from anxiety as Americans move past the prejudices of the past with regard to gays-- even in the conservative South.
QUOTE: "No, I don't hate gays. But I hate male on male sex of any kind."
And you don't see the hypocrisy in that statement do you?
You have done a very thoughtful and caring response, and I applaud you for that. And I have to agree with its4it, however. So many people will try to misrepresent, badmouth, and just plain lie about what you said. But be strong, man, and keep the faith. Your words may get through some, and may be instrumental in their salvation.
Sage words, indeed on the issue of law. Thanks you. What about the creed of Jesus in Mark 12:29, hardly a Trinitarian creed, do you think?
Why is the church then "off base" on something so fundamental?
Am I incorrect? Leviticus does NOT condemn all homosexuality; only male homosexuality appears to be condemned. Leviticus details both sexes in its condemnation of bestiality but not in this issue. Lesbianism seems to be OK for the millenia until the writing of Romans. In 1 Corinthians and in 1 Timothy only male homosexuality is condemned.... but these were written after Romans? What's with that?
Is Jimmy male or female with a beard?
Did you not make it to that part of the video?
The Church instantly knew that this was nonsense, and condemn him.
They did nothing, however, to condemn the theory. Copies of the Galileo's thesis remained in circulation amongst the Scholars of the Church.
It's easy to look back in hindsight, and scoff at people for not INSTANTLY accepting something we today know to be true.
At the time it was only a novel theory, with not much to predicate it on, just as theories dealing with the structure and lives of black holes.
With all due respect, this critique of Dan Savage is pretty weak tea. Yes, there are some laws in Leviticus we live by - ALL moral people, not just Christians, which should tell you something important. He's obviously referring to the ridiculous laws that no one follows, like the endorsement of stoning (Lev. 20:27), eating locusts (Lev. 11:22), prohibition on mixed fibers (Lev. 19:19), and my personal favorite: "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads" (Lev 19:27). Do you follow these?
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24" What about that?
Great stuff...Shared!
Thanks & God bless!
"Church had no moral right to torture or imprison anyone, "bullshit" or not."
He wasn't tortured. "Morally", that's up for debate, and one point we may even agree on, "legally", the man lived in a country that ceded to Church authority, so it's self-explanatory.
"The argument was based primarily, not on waves, but upon the movement of the stars"
That's not how Galileo tried to sell it in 1633, you need to look it up. He also argued from the Agustine standpoint it did not counter scripture.
I'd agree that Dan Savage makes this argument badly, but there are many more cogently argued versions, and this video is a bit of a straw-man argument for picking this weaker version.
Jesus commanded unequivocally that all the Old Testament laws remain in full force (quotes below from Matthew and Luke). He never said anything about a hierarchy of laws in which some could be disregarded. Jesus was quite clear on this. I would go with the words of Jesus in the Gospels, rather than Paul's interpretation (or your interpretation of Paul), especially since the Gospels are quoting Jesus, and Paul does not.
However, even if you accept Paul's idea (or maybe it's your idea) that moral laws are the only laws that remain in full force, a substantial number of Christians are still hypocrites on the Bible's moral law, namely the prohibition against divorce and remarriage (see quote from Luke below). There are many divorced and remarried Christians who would still condemn gay people for living as openly gay people, which is utter hypocrisy if you believe that the Bible's moral code is absolute.
From Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
From Luke 16:17-18: "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
So you see, it is fair to argue hypocrisy. Christians should be decrying divorce just as loudly as gay marriage; but divorce is a not an issue Christians rally around. They don't because this is a moral law that would seriously harm them, their family or their neighbours.
The Catholic Church condemns divorce.
You have the ability to view a person's level of happiness?
How can you say " I think he would be happier..."
There quite lot of people in the comment section not acting objective, reasonable, or friendly. I urge all of you whether you agree with or disagree with what Jimmy Akin had to say to stop using rhetorical attacks and starting thinking about the line of reasoning he is using.